 We will look at the evidence from this and other work and take a judgment over what is appropriate for the rest of the country. The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Smith commission. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out for the chamber today the Scottish Government's response to the proposals published by the UK Government on the Smith commission last Thursday. The Government welcomes the publication of the UK Government's command paper and the draft bill. Although it is no secret that we do not believe that the Smith proposal is going nearly far enough, the publication of those clauses is another important step in providing this Parliament with further levers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The objective of the Scottish Government now is to develop a bill that commands broad support ready for introduction as soon as possible after the United Kingdom general election in May. That is in line with the clear position of the Scottish Government that decisions affecting the lives of people in Scotland should be taken here in Scotland to reflect the priorities and views of those who choose to live and to work in this country. I also welcome the progress that the Scottish and UK Governments have made in agreeing an order to transfer powers to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in Scottish Parliament and local authority elections. That order was laid in both parliaments last week. Through joint working and effective co-ordination, we should reach a similarly agreed position on the new Scotland bill. Encouragingly, there are areas in the draft clauses where the initial drafting is already close to what should be in the final bill. Examples include the provisions on air passenger duty and on aggregates levy. Our initial assessment of the income tax provisions suggests that they are close to delivering what the Smith commission recommended. However, a number of areas that the Scottish Government wishes to see improved. First, I would highlight those provisions where Scottish ministers are required to consult UK ministers and those where they must obtain consent. No one in this chamber would want decisions of this Parliament in areas such as the bedroom tax, frustrated by the need for consent from the UK Government. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed over the weekend that there should be no right of veto, so it is important that the UK Government revisits those clauses that require consent. Second, devolution of employability programmes appears to be limited to those dealing with people at risk of long-term unemployment and to programmes over 12 months. Neither of those restrictions featured in the Smith commission. I look to support from all other parties for the fullest possible implementation of those important powers. Thirdly, we and a wide range of stakeholders are concerned to see that Lord Smith's recommendation for a power to create new benefits in devolved areas simply does not appear in the command paper and the bill. The clauses only allow this Parliament to create new benefits in the much narrower areas of welfare to be devolved under the bill. Similarly, the ability to top up reserved benefits has been watered down to cases of hardship. That is not a credible interpretation of paragraph 54 of Smith. The Scottish Parliament will have new powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. The Scottish Parliament will also have new powers to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare without the need to obtain prior permission from the Department of Work and Pensions. Nor is it credible to argue that this Parliament already has the competence to create benefits in devolved areas when social security schemes are specifically reserved under the Scotland Act. Many in this chamber will recall the difficulties that this Parliament has faced in areas such as carers benefits and council tax reductions due to the reservation, and it is therefore vital that the new power to create new benefits in devolved areas is put beyond any reasonable doubt. Those were rightly hailed as some of the most important of the Smith proposals, and that is perhaps the most serious omission in the bill as it was published this week. More widely, there is detailed work to be done across a whole range of provisions to improve and to refine the draft clauses. There is already debate in academic circles about whether the provisions that guarantee the permanence of this Parliament and put the sole commission on a statutory basis are as strong as they could be within legislation. The provision on the crown estate is complex and the nature of the scheme to transfer assets to the Scottish Government will need to be explored with the United Kingdom Government. We also need to be sure that this Parliament has legislative competence out to 200 miles under the draft provision. We will want to consider carefully the equality provision to ensure that it meets the Smith recommendation that the powers of the Scottish Parliament will include but not be limited to the introduction of gender quotas in respect of public bodies in Scotland. Amongst the other provisions that we will want to consider carefully are those on tribunals, consumer protection and advocacy, and fixed odds betting terminals, where stakeholders have already started to express doubts about the effectiveness of the draft clauses. I also want to stress the importance of non-legislative provisions of the proposals, most notably the fiscal framework to support the operation of the tax and spending hours. The negotiation around the fiscal framework will be more complex than negotiations on block grant adjustment for the Scotland Act 2012, although that experience is one that we can build on, but hopefully we can do it in slightly less time than it has taken on the block grant adjustment to date. There are new factors such as the no detriment policy, which will seek to identify the relative costs and benefits of different policy decisions and the block grant adjustment for the assignment of VAT revenues. I welcome the United Kingdom Government's acknowledgement that we must move forward by negotiation and agreement in the many important issues that the fiscal framework will cover. There is clearly much to do to construct an agreed new fiscal framework that serves the needs of the people of Scotland. I will be looking for an early meeting with Treasury ministers to progress this work. I now like to turn, Presiding Officer, to the next steps in taking forward these issues. The Scottish Government's aim now is to work with the United Kingdom Government and others to develop the draft clauses into a bill with widespread support that is ready to be introduced to Westminster shortly after this year's general election. The UK Government's command paper envisages a similar process. I want to state clearly today the Scottish Government's commitment to working constructively with the UK Government to refine and to improve the draft clauses. In doing so, I hope that we will see early consultation and a willingness to address areas of concern, as well as the support of other parties in the chamber for issues that we advance. Of course, the next steps in this process are not for Governments alone. The Scottish Government will be discussing our plans for stakeholder engagement with the United Kingdom Government, and we will also be considering what other support we can offer stakeholders and the public to engage with the bill. This Parliament will also play a key role in the next stages of consideration of these issues. Already, the Devolution of Further Powers Committee, chaired by Mr Crawford, has issued a call for evidence on the command paper and the draft clauses. I expect the committee to carry out detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill and also to give evidence in due course to the committee. I know that the committee has also planned a series of public engagements to allow the people of Scotland to have their say directly to Parliament on the relevant provisions. The first of those events is in Hamilton on 2 February, with the following one in Aberdeen, after the February recess. That is an important initiative by the committee, and I take this opportunity to wish them every success in taking it forward. Publication of the UK Government's command paper and draft bill last week marks the start of a new phase of work on the Smith commission's proposals, one that has opportunities for the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland to take the bill and to shape it to deliver what it wants from the Smith commission's work. The most immediate priority is ensuring that the bill is introduced later this year, delivering the spirit and intent of the Smith commission in a coherent and practicable way. Beyond that, we have already begun to consider how those powers should be used to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. As many people have commented, that is the underlying purpose of the exercise. The Scottish Government has already set out how it plans to use some of the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament to create jobs, to boost the economy and to tackle inequality. We have made clear proposals to cut air passenger duty, to replace the work programme and to make sure that local communities benefit from the devolution of the Crown Estate. This Parliament will need to agree to the bill introduced in Westminster later this year. The Scottish Government will support that process to achieve transfer of competence as swiftly and effectively as possible. At the same time, the Government will be consulting with the public and interested groups about how those powers should be used and how we share powers with local authorities and local communities across Scotland. Let me conclude by saying to the chamber that there should be a common objective of ensuring that the Smith commission agreement is implemented as swiftly and effectively as possible. That means that all of us recognise those parts of the proposals that represent good progress and are working with the Scottish Government to argue for improvements in key relevant areas. We in the Scottish Government are determined to argue for what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland, but, in the end, it will be for the people of Scotland to judge at the ballot box whether those proposals meet their ambitions and whether they have in fact been delivered. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. We will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around about 20 minutes for that, after which we move on to the next side of business. Members who wish to ask a question of Deputy First Minister should press the request button now. I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advanced copy of his statement and welcome the publication of the command paper, which heralds the biggest ever transfer of powers to this Parliament since devolution. Labour has said that we will deliver the Home Rule Scotland bill in the first 100 days of a Labour Government, with extensive new powers over tax, jobs and welfare, that will form the basis of a modern Home Rule Scotland, at the same time as protecting the bonus that we receive from the Barnett formula. I note the Scottish Government's response to consultation with the UK Government about changes to universal credit. I genuinely do not believe that that amounts to a right of veto. It is about practical issues like timing, and I am sure that we all agree that the sensible thing to do in the interests of ensuring smooth transition is to do exactly that, is for both Governments to talk to each other. It was wrong, I think, to suggest that there is any other intent other than that behind that. Mr Sweeney's comments about an employment programme, as I understand it, do not reflect the discussions in the Smith commission. Clause 22 gives the Scottish Parliament full powers over this area, and it means that all of the work programme will be devolved in addition to other smaller employability programmes. We agree that job-creating powers are important. The work programme is important in that regard. It does not work very effectively, so I welcome the opportunity to reform it, but Labour wants that to devolve now. Labour would equally reform the work programme, but we would devolve it to local authorities who we think are best placed to tackle the challenge of jobs. Will the cabinet secretary join with Labour in calling for the urgent devolution of the work programme and, in turn, commit to devolving it to local authorities? I ask the Deputy First Minister whether he could provide us with a timetable for getting the fiscal framework that he spoke about in place. Jackie Baillie, in her first remark about universal credit, misses the point of what we have been presented with, not in the words of the command paper, but in the words of the clauses. Jackie Baillie is an experienced parliamentarian. She knows the significance of every single word in a legislative provision. The reading of section 24 of the draft clauses from the United Kingdom Government as it affects universal credit raised the significant doubts that the Scottish Government has raised about the fact that UK ministers would be able to stop a Scottish Government being able to take forward reforms in this area if they chose to do so. They would have a basis of saying so, either in relation to practicability or in relation to timing. Jackie Baillie will understand the view that the Scottish Government takes, which I think is consistent, utterly consistent with the Smith commission, that believes that those powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament for them to be exercised by the Scottish Parliament. They will not be exercised with caveats applied to them, which is the problem that is in section 24. Because of the fact that we are dealing with clauses of a draft bill, we have to get precision into those provisions. As I look at the way in which the UK ministers, to be fair to them, have said since Thursday morning that there are absolutely no caveats, no problems, no obstacles, I simply say that, in the spirit of dialogue, let's change that clause and remove any possible caveats that there could be to the exercising of those responsibilities here in the Scottish Parliament. On the question of employment programmes, the Scottish Government wants to see the devolution of employment programmes to the Scottish Parliament. We have made no secret of the fact that we think that the work programme has been a poor performing programme. We think that it would be better performing if it was integrated in the wider employability provisions that are put in place, some of which are taken forward by our local authority partners, some of which are taken forward by third sector organisations, both of them in a more successful fashion than the work programme has been able to take those issues forward. The problem that we face is that the work programme contracts have been extended beyond the period that we all reasonably thought they would be in existence for and extended while the Smith commission was actually deliberating on this very question. We certainly have made the point to the UK Government, and we will continue to make the point to the UK Government, that we need to ensure that the wide range of employment programmes are available to us, and we will, of course, be happy to take forward the delivery of those programmes in partnership with our local authority colleagues. The final point that Jackie Baillie raised with me was about the timescale for the fiscal framework. I, as I have indicated in my statement, wish to embark on early discussions with UK ministers on the fiscal framework. It is very important not just for me but for all of us, because the fiscal framework that emerges out of those provisions will affect every single member of the Scottish Parliament and will affect the judgments that we are able to make and the issues with which we have to wrestle. It is a process that Parliament needs to consider carefully, and the Government will certainly advance those discussions at an early stage and inform Parliament of its course. Presiding Officer, I too thank the cabinet secretary for a prior site of his statement, and thank him too for something of a welcome surprise. I liked the character of the statement. It was unexpectedly conciliatory, and that is in striking contrast to some of the language that we have had from the Scottish Government post the Smith report. I even see in here, Presiding Officer, such wonderful welcomes and the word encouragingly. I feel that we are making progress, and things are indeed looking up and constructive partnership between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government is something that we can very much hope for with a degree of confidence. Presiding Officer, the Smith commission was very clear that this was not just about the transfer of powers from Westminster to this Parliament. It was also about how we actually deal with devolving some power to local authorities and local communities. I am pleased to see that the cabinet secretary includes this in the final part of his statement, where he specifically refers to consultation with the public and industry groups about how those new powers should be used and how we share those powers with local authorities and local communities. Can I ask him to confirm that consideration should also be given to how we share the existing powers of this Parliament? I do not think that we should just look at the new powers in a vacuum in isolation. I hope that he will agree that there is a broader remit that could usefully be explored. Has he got a time frame in mind for this whole process? The last time Ms Goldie and I exchanged words on the Smith commission, she somewhat unjustly accused me of being curmudgeonly. It was of the many things that I have been accused of in this Parliament that I thought were the most unwarranted. It forced me into some un-galant remarks back to Ms Goldie, which I shall refrain from in the spirit of co-operation today. I agree with a number of points that Ms Goldie has made about devolution of powers within Scotland. Obviously, when this Government came to power, we took a strategic decision about enabling local authorities to exercise much greater fiscal flexibility than they had previously by removing the ring-fencing arrangements that have been in place across many aspects of public expenditure to date. That gave local authorities the freedom to make particular choices according to the needs of their localities. I accept that I have made the argument in my statement for the devolution of responsibilities to local authorities and to local communities. That whole concept is a debate that I am sure Ms Goldie accepts, which is more than about devolution to another tier of government, but it is to our communities. The community empowerment legislation that Mr Biacchi has taken through Parliament, which was introduced by Mr Mackay, is designed to encourage the whole process of discussion and involvement at local communities and ensure that our communities are able to achieve a great deal more as a consequence of the responsibilities that they can exercise on their own free will. Finally, on time scale, I would like to make as much progress on addressing some of the very specific issues that we have about the clauses before the United Kingdom general election. That means that the swiftest start can be made to legislating by the UK Parliament immediately after the UK general election. Of course, the committee that Mr Crawford chairs will be looking at those issues in Parliament, and I am sure that we will have a substantial contribution to make to the process as well. Linda Fabiani, followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have noticed again today that the Labour Party keep referring to the draft clauses and coming legislation as the Home Rule Scotland Bill, which appears to be the new mantra. May I ask the Deputy First Minister whether he considers that the draft clauses, as presented, can in any measure whatsoever be described as Home Rule? It is not a description that I would apply to those provisions. There are greater powers for the Parliament. I have made that quite clear to Parliament already, but there are some significant areas of responsibility that remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government, which should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament to constitute the term Home Rule. I would also make the point that the exchange that I had with Jackie Baillie about section 24 is illustrative of some of the constraints that still percolate their way into the draft clauses, and we have to use the opportunity of dialogue to remove those provisions to ensure that we have the ability to exercise powers as we judge fit here in Scotland. Willie Rennie, followed by Duncan McNeill. I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I think that Annabelle Goldie is right that he has made a remarkable transformation to good cop within the space of just one week. I hope that that continues, because the response to the Smith agreement and the subsequent publication of the clauses was deeply negative from the Scottish Government. This is the transfer of £20 billion worth of new taxes, a £3 billion new Scottish welfare system. That transfer will pose considerable challenges for this Parliament and this Government. We have seen with Revenue Scotland the real difficulties that were posed to this Government and to the Parliament, with just the transfer of two small taxes. To avoid the repeat of those mistakes, will he agree to the establishment of a cross-party, advanced fiscal team to plan the effective and orderly implementation of those new substantial powers? I can go back to bad cop quite quickly, if Mr Rennie would like it. I am tempted after the baloney that we have just heard from Mr Rennie. First of all, just as a matter of fact, less than 30 per cent of Scottish taxes will be set in Scotland after that conclusion. Less than 30 per cent, 14 per cent of welfare spend will be devolved to Scotland. I am quite sure that there were moments in the Smith commission when Mr Rennie's colleagues would have liked to have achieved more than what they achieved in relation to welfare devolution than was secured at the end. I do not think that we should get a lecture from Mr Rennie about the extent of those provisions. He mentioned Revenue Scotland, and Revenue Scotland has to be ready for business on 1 April. That is when it has got to be ready for business. I have said to Parliament consistently that I am very confident and have been very confident for some considerable time about the efforts that have been put in by the team in Revenue Scotland to ensure that the organisation is ready for its operational activities on 1 April. I will be seeing the board on Thursday. I have been seeing regular updates. I am very pleased with the progress that has been made. Indeed, I hope that I am able to make some further announcements about the progress that Revenue Scotland is making, subject to wider discussions with the United Kingdom Government. On his point about the fiscal framework, the Scottish Government has a role to perform in negotiating with the United Kingdom Government about the details of the fiscal framework. I will, of course, advise Parliament about the course of those discussions, but in case Mr Rennie is worrying about having a restless night, I intend to fight very hard for the interests of Scotland in the fiscal framework. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought that we would escape the bad cop this afternoon, but apparently not, because I was about to welcome the cabinet secretary's statement, and, like Annabelle Goldie, I recognise the progress that has been acknowledged in that statement, and indeed the optimism that progressed to come. While recognising that we have got a lot of work to do with more debate, it is absolutely necessary that there should be the bad cop, but only when it is necessary. We should not be making up fights, like we have done in clause 22, when the Scottish Government claimed that the devolution of employment support fell well short of its promise. When Mr Swinney knows that he agreed in the Smith commission that those powers that would remain in the hands of the UK Government in Smith was agreed, and the examples of reserved job centres and indeed job benefits were agreed. Why does he acknowledge where there is agreement fully and get on with the hard debate about the issues that still work to be done, rather than fabricating debates over issues where there is no substance? If Mr McNeill wants to throw in the towel on important issues that affect Scotland, that is up to Mr McNeill, but I will not do that. On the issues that we are concerned about, for example, about universal credit, I have rehearsed with Jackie Baillie the issue of substance, the issue of substance that is at stake in the wording of the clause as it stands. If Mr McNeill wants to turn a blind eye to that and say, no, no, we should just roll over and let it all happen and we should not bother about it and we should not agitate to protect about it, then I do not know what precisely he is complaining about today. What I would say to Mr McNeill is that the Scottish Government will go about the proper duty that we should have of making sure that the Smith commission's proposals are turned into reality in the clauses and there are no attempts to, in any way, constrain the exercise of responsibilities that should be properly exercised by the Scottish Parliament. In response to the UK Government's published draft clauses, Margaret Lynch, chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland said, I quote, The Smith commission led us to believe that the Scottish Government could craft its own welfare system outside of universal credit, taking into account the needs of Scotland. It seems now that offer has been withdrawn. Does the Deputy First Minister share Ms Lynch's views and does he feel that the welfare needs of the people of Scotland have been ignored by the UK Government? I said in my statement that there was a substantive concern about the narrow definition of the ability to create new benefits. To me, that does not translate paragraph 54 of the Smith commission into what anybody could believe was legislative provision and it is one of the issues that, as a priority, I think that we need to revisit. The Deputy First Minister made mention of the principle of no detriment and indeed the commentary has made much of how difficult a principle this is. Mr Swinney called this a new principle but it is not a new principle, is it? Mr Swinney has just successfully negotiated a no detriment settlement with regard to already devolved taxes and indeed it was a negotiation in which the Scottish block in the end benefited more than initially it was thought perhaps might be the case. Will he agree with me that this principle of no detriment is both well established, understood and indeed effective? Mr Gray must have been taken the optimistic tablets this morning if he thinks that my block grant adjustment about land and buildings transaction tax was a cheery optimistic affair. I would use none of those words to describe the whole process. There is a significant difference, and that is why I disagree with Mr Gray about the fact that the no detriment principle is not new. The no detriment principle, as it will have to be applied and as it is speculated about in the command paper, relates to how where there is a devolution of an income tax responsibility, there will then be changes to the way in which expenditure decisions are calculated within the United Kingdom's existing framework through the Barnett formula. That is new territory. That is why, in my answer to Jackie Baillie, I made it clear that it was in the interests of everybody in this Parliament, whatever their politics, because having for a friend at some stage in the future, very unlikely, somebody else might have to stand here and do the finance secretary's job, who knows, but having for a friend, Mr Yousaf, exactly, having for a friend, but it is in the interests of every one of us to make sure that the interests of Scotland are well protected by the application of that no detriment principle. Given the ambiguities around the application or this application of conditions, as enshrined in clauses of the draft bill, can the Scottish Government indicate what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the fiscal policies and framework that is needed to support the promised early introduction of the bill? Will it be discussing the issue of capital borrowing with the UK Government and the suggestion that capital spending could be replaced by borrowing, as the UK Government indicated when the fiscal requirements will be ready? There have been no substantive discussions with the UK Government since the publication of the command paper on Thursday. We have signalled our willingness to undertake those substantive discussions and I can assure Mr Brody that that is exactly what we will endeavour to do. Given that it should have been devolved already through Calman, does the Deputy First Minister agree that air passenger duty must be devolved to the Scottish Parliament at the earliest opportunity? Can the Deputy First Minister provide assurances that he will pursue this with the UK Government at the earliest opportunity? In all the rhetoric around the clauses, there has been a point made by the UK Government that we should make early and swift progress after the UK general election. That is the timetable that we want to work to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken urgently to secure the devolution of all the responsibilities. Of course, the point that Mr Kerr makes, which I think is a very fair point, is that air passenger duty he correctly highlights was one of the issues in the Calman commission, which was not translated into the Scotland Act 2012. We have to make sure that all of these provisions are translated into the contents of the Scotland bill that emerges as a consequence of this process. Lewis MacDonald, followed by Roderick Campbell. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the increasing surcharges on packages and parcels delivered by a number of private companies specifically in the north of Scotland, not only in the Highlands and Islands but also in the rural north-east. Does he agree that the UK command paper now gives Scottish ministers the powers that they need to require a full investigation of competition issues specific to Scotland on the same basis as the UK minister of the crown? Does he agree that those new powers should be used to tackle discriminatory surcharging at the earliest opportunity? Where we attract and exercise powers of that nature, I do agree that they should be utilised in that fashion. We have to make sure that we have the ability to exercise fully and comprehensively without reference to the United Kingdom Government some of those powers and responsibilities. We have to ensure that, for example, the involvement of the Scottish Government has been set out in a consultative fashion, that we are able to secure influence greater than that and to be able to exercise responsibilities that will enable us to act in the fashion that Mr MacDonald has suggested. The transfer of crown estate assets to Scotland does not clearly reflect what was proposed by the Smith commission. Will you press the UK Government to provide clarity over the extent of the powers to legislate on the crown estate in Scotland out to 200 nautical miles and ensure that that is properly reflected in any legislation going forward? One of the issues that I raised in my statement was that it is not clear to us at this stage that legislative competence to exercise responsibility out to 200 miles has in fact been devolved in the draft clauses. That is a material and substantive point that we will explore with the United Kingdom Government, because it was certainly very clear by the nature of the way in which the clauses on the Crown Estate at clauses 32 to 35 of the Smith commission report, and specifically at clause 34 that the intention of the Smith commission was to see those responsibilities legislatively devolved at 200 miles. Could the Deputy First Minister confirm, if it is Scottish Government policy, to create a not-for-profit publicly owned rail operator at the earliest opportunity in light of the Smith commission proposals? There was and always has been the ability of a not-for-profit operator to bid as part of the ScotRail franchise, which, of course, was a franchise arrangement that was put in place by the Labour Government and supported by the Labour Government. We encouraged and invited a not-for-profit interested parties to bring forward a proposition as part of the recent re-tendering of the ScotRail franchise. Of course, we will use the responsibilities that are devolved to us in this area to ensure that such ventures are able to have every possibility in taking forward the running of the railway in Scotland. Patrick Harvie Thank you. I thank the Deputy First Minister for the Advanced Copy of the statement. Not every paragraph of the Smith report managed to achieve crystal clarity, but the proposal to devolve power over onshore oil and gas licensing was absolutely unambiguous. The UK Government seems on the point of dishing out licenses for fracking, coal-bed methane and other forms of unconventional gas extraction across Scotland, handing over the central belt to the fracking industry. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that such action would render those powers worthless before they are devolved and demonstrate contempt for the process? Will the Government support this Parliament in taking an early opportunity to vote on that matter, sending a clear signal about what our expectations are from the UK Government? The Deputy First Minister Mr Ewing wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy at the end of last week. The point that he made to Ed Davies was that, given the publication of the clauses on Thursday, it was crystal clear that this policy responsibility was now coming to the Scottish Parliament. Our view was that, although we await that power to be devolved, no decisions about licenses should be made by the UK Government in that period, until such time as the Scottish Parliament is able to exercise those responsibilities. That call was made on Friday to Ed Davies. I am not aware of a response to that call from Mr Ewing. Of course, as Mr Harvill will be aware, Mr Ewing is making a statement on many of those issues to Parliament tomorrow, and I am sure that we will have more to say in that respect. That ends the statement on the Smith commission report. The next item of business is a further statement, this time by Richard Lochhead, on the Agriculture Holdings Review Group report.